Manitoba Metis win Land Dispute Case against Government of Canada

Today the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal government had failed to act diligently in fulfilling its obligation to the Métis settlers of the Red River territory.

A legal challenge by the Manitoba Métis Federation sought recognition for the treatment of its people after the 1870 government land deal that ended in the famous Red River Rebellion lead by Louis Riel.

The decision of the court allowed an appeal from the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

After Confederation, the first government of Canada embarked on a policy aimed at bringing the western territories into Canada. However, the French-speaking, Roman Catholic Métis, who were the dominant demographic group in the Red River Settlement resisted Canada's annexation. After some negotiation with Canada, the Red River settlers agreed to become part of Canada and Canada agreed to grant 1.4 million acres of land to the Métis children and to recognize existing land holdings.  These obligations were subsequently set out in the provisions of the Manitoba Act (the "Act").

However, in the following years, the Canadian government made several mistakes, including determining who had a right to share in the land, distributing the land randomly, and underestimating the number of eligible Métis children.

The Métis sought a declaration that:

1. the Canadian government breached its fiduciary obligations owed to the Métis in implementing the Act;

2. the Canadian government failed to implement the Act in a manner consistent with the honour of the Crown; and

3. certain legislation passed by Manitoba effecting the implementation of the Act was ultra vires.

A trial judge and the Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the claim of the Métis.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part in finding that the government had failed to implement the land grant provisions established in 1870 in accordance with "the honour of the Crown".

The majority of the court (6 judges) held that the statutory obligations under the Act did not impose a fiduciary duty on the Canadian government. Although the Crown undertook discretionary control of the administration of the land grants, the Métis are Aboriginal and they had an interest in the land. The Act simply confirmed the continuance of different categories of land holdings in existence shortly before or at the creation of the new province of Manitoba. It did not constitute an undertaking on the part of the Crown to act as a fiduciary in settling the titles of the Métis land holders.

However, the majority found that the Métis were entitled to a declaration that the government of Canada had failed to act with diligence in implementing the land grant provision of the Act in accordance with the honour of the Crown.

The Court held that the ultimate purpose of the honour of the Crown is the reconciliation of pre-existing Aboriginal societies with the assertion of Canadian sovereignty. Where this is at stake, it requires the Crown to act honourable in its dealings with the Aboriginal peoples in question. This requirement flows from the guarantee of Aboriginal rights in the Canadian Constitution Act. The Constitution is not a mere statute; it is the very document by which the Crown asserted its sovereignty in the face of prior Aboriginal occupation. An explicit obligation to an Aboriginal group in the Constitution engages the honour of the Crown.

In the context of the implementation of a constitutional obligation to an Aboriginal people, the honour of the Crown requires that the Crown:

1. take a broad purposive approach to the interpretation of the promise; and

2. acted diligently to fulfill it.

In this case, a persistent pattern of errors and indifference substantially frustrated the purpose of a solemn promise and amount to betrayal of the Crown's duty to act honourable in fulfilling its promise.

Regards,

Blair